An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, July 14, 2018, 11:48 (2106 days ago) @ David Turell

I shall only respond to those comments not dealt with in my first post on this thread.

dhw: Tony has not spelt out his alternative theory, but it would seem to be God’s separate creation of the species. (He’ll correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you accept this as a reasonable alternative to common descent?

DAVID: Yes. I believe in theistic evolution.

Evolution is the very opposite of separate creation, and that is what caused all the furore at the time of Darwin’s book. Either you believe in evolution or you believe in separate creation!

TONY: Why would ANY designer reinvent the code every time they needed to do something similar?

dhw: A very good argument for common descent. Why would your God need to create each species separately (or do you have a different hypothesis?) if he has already devised a code that would lead to speciation?

DAVID: It is simpler to have all the information present from the beginning.

Tony hasn’t answered my question. I don’t find it “simpler” to have a complete programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder installed in the very first cells, to be passed down through ever changing environments and through billions of generations and organisms, each one having to delete every programme except its own. But it would certainly be simpler to devise a code enabling organisms to work out their own way to cope with or exploit their environment.

DAVID: (to Tony): You don't seem to believe in common descent, but based on your discussion of rearranging parts, doesn't that imply each stage came from the past stage?

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

DAVID: I don't agree with what you believe. What is rearranged is DNA, not a primary change in parts. That is always secondary.

You were arguing that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent. I also think that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent.